LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0DD017373Eb 










;•■ *° ■' 









'•^u-o"^ 



, O « 9 , <5i 



'-^ > i'%. 



^^ .-..., ^^^_ 









^^ ..* "-^ ■ 

.^r^% °o 






C" * 



,-J'"' . 



' xOr.. '< 



.-i-^x 






•^^^AT^,". -^ 



^^^-vx.^^^iJ' 









W: 






A^^ 



^0 



-e.'^^ .^ ° "' 



r'^-i.?T7-v 
















^^^.. 



.•^'^ 






O 



•3' 



.V 



'^,. 



^° ^^'K; 



^. 






^.. ,-V 



ipeecli of Hob. J?' J. CRITTEXDEN, of Kentucky, 
6'n his resolutions, c 

* isD^liver^din the ^-.aate of the United States, January 7, 1861. 



Mr. C^^ITTENDEN. I will occupy the floor but a little while on this occasion. 

do not desire to procrastinate, or see procrastinated, the coming to a final decision 
m this measure. 

Mr. President, if I could indulge myself with the hope that the resolution which 

I have jiroposed for 'amendments to the Constitution could obtain that majority in 

this Senate, which'would recommend it to the States for their adoption, by conven- 

'•"n r by Legisliiture, I should never have made this motion for a reference of the 

I to the people. It is the extraordinary condition of the country, the extra- 

/' circumstances by which we are now surrounded, and the peculiaf 

1 in which Congress itself is placed, that has induced me to attempt 

lordinary a resort. We believe that amendments to the Constitution are 

.te (d giie that permanent security which is necessary to satisfy the public 

, and restore quiet to the country. Those amendments can not be r'^cora- 

ded, nor can we proceed in the measure of amendment, unless it be by a 

j-third fnajoiity. I have feared that that majority could not be hoped for 
.'re; and it is ir? this last extremity tliat I have proposecJ that we should invoke the 
,udgment of the people upon the great question on which their government depends. 
It is not an ordinary question ; it is no question of party ; it is no question of policy; 
it is a question involving the existence of the Union, and the existence of the gov- 
t-rnment. Upun so momentous a question, where the public councils themselves are 
so divided and so distracted as not to be able to adopt, for the want of the requisite 
iiiajoriiy, those means that are supposed to be necessary lor the safety of the country 
and the people, it has seemed to me not improper that we should resort to the great 
source of all political authority — the people themselves. This is their government; 
this is their Ujiion ; we are hut their representatives. I speak in no feeling of iiattery 
to the people, sir. No; I call upon them to pronounce their judgment, and do their 
duly to their country. If we cannot save the country, and they will not save the 
country, the country is gone. 1 wish to preserve it by all the means, ordinary and 
extraordinary, that are within our possible reach. That is the whole feeling, and 
that is the entire principle upon which I have acted in making this proposition. I 
s'-e nothing improper in it. 

It may be ohjecied to as not a mode recognized by the Constitution. Well, sir, 
it is not forbidden by the Constitution, nor does it conflict with any principle of the 
Constitution, and it aims at nothing but what is entitled to influence here. That 
influence will be v.'eighed by the Senate properly and justly. It is simply an appeal 
to the people to aid us, their representatives, by giving us their judgment and their 
opinion upQi> the subject. That judgment and opinion will not be humiliating to 
us. If they she d condescend to pronounce their judgment and give their opinion, 
there is no bun ation in obeying the voice of a great nation, whose representatives 
we are, and wl e .servants we are proud to call ourselves. Their sentiments and 
their opinions \ 1 be our safest guide upun this question, surrounded as it is by so 
niairy diflii'iilti<^ and disabled as we are by our own distractions and divisions in 
Con^eis( "t'ron ;ting upon it without some power to control and to govern indi- 
vidual opinion 

I "^ not thii necessary, Mr. President, that I should enlarge upon this subject. 
TriiTlbjeci to I >tained is a constitutional one. It is to ascertain the sense of the 
peop!', and for loses salutary to the people, and necessary for the preservation of 
the country, in he circumstances whicli surround it. 

Tl? n, sir, as e constitutional amendments which are proposed for the sanction 
''f ''''■"' ' on which they are to give their opinion, I had occasion some time 

'?*' - oiirks, and I intend now to add only a fewmore, 1 do not intenr 

•^ fe'' • ■ i . laT'ge into this question. I do not know that I shall at an< 

ime — •C'ertaiijiv low, when I am not fully apprised, perhaps, of the varioi 

jnjectioti'- itr I riy le nrtade to them. The first remedy propc ' --sts in a ne 

*•"'' u the Constitution, and which proposes for n settle t 

l"^"' md the qyesiion of slavery in respect to tt 'o s< 

hat — liow 1 to provide that all the territory north of 

•^ slavery; the south slavery shall be recognized anr" 

*^^ ng there for its protection. ' "r- r 

roportion of it, shal' br 



9 



' 5' 
2 „ ^0.2 

jito the Union. Then they are to be admitted with such provisions as they m 
choose to make in their constitution in respect to .slavery — excluding it or admittii 
it. This IS all. To the North all is given ; to the South it is only provided th, 
things .shall remain as they are until the territory becomf.s a State, and then it is i 
adopt this institution of slavery or not, according to the wish of the people that ai 
interested in the new State. It seems to me there is something very just and ver 
fair on the face of this proposition. 

We are a great nation, composed now of thirty-three States. Fifteen of these havt 
this peculiar institution of slavery : the others have excluded it, each acting accord- 
ing to its own free choice under the Constitution. Slavery existed in these and more 
States when the Constitution was formed. The Constitution took things as they 
were, recognized them as they were, and left them as they were, to the exclusive jur- 
isdiction of the several States. Those who had the institution of slavery were left 
to the sole dominion over it; those who were without it were left to the free a i fiiil 
course of their own will and of their own wisdom upon the subject, on the one 1' 
continue tu exclude it, or on theotner side to continue to retain it. This was the 
general, reciprocal justice whicii the Constitution did to all sections of the con 
Now. sir, 1 ask the same standard and the same measure of justice. Let i 
things as they are; that js the object. To the north of 36° 30' slavery- has", he 
eluded. I say, therefore, slavery is excluded. To the south slavery exists as a n. 
of fact. I ask you to recognize it. That was the principle upon which the frai. 
of our Constitution went, recognizing the status existing at the time, adopting tl. 
accepting that as a basis. This is what I understand in respect to all ihe State 
TLiis /.'5 all now that I ask ; all that this proposition is. There are ■■outh of that lini 
the i.idian Territory, and the Territory of New Mexico; that is all. Of the Indian 
Territory I need say nothing; that is appropriated to others, and up?u the terras of 
thai appropriation it rests. By those terms, however, slavery n)ay be recognized as 
existing there; for the fact is, it does exist. So in all New Mexico; and how comes 
it to exist in i\'ew Mexico ? It exists potentially in New Mexico in virtue of the de- 
cision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the so-o!ten quoted caseofDrcd 
Scott. They say that all the people of the United States have tlie right equally to 
go into the common territory of the United States, and carry with them any species 
or description of pro[)erty recognized as such in the States from wliich they emigrate. 
Potentially, then, slavery does exist there ; but more than that : by the great compro- 
mise measures of 1850, a territorial governmeut was formed for New Mexico, and 
one of the compromises, one of the adjustments on that great occasion, was to give 
this Territory, which was a subject of dispute in respect to tiie question of slavery, 
power to "legislate on all rightful subjects of legislation." It was intended to cover 
this case ; it did cover the case of slavery by the broad and distinct terms in which 
the power was given to the Territorial Legislature. That was the agreement betweea 
the North and the South : " We will say nothing about slavery ourselves, but we will 
constitute a territorial government, ami we will give to that territorial government, 
representing the local interests, representing the local population, the power to dispose 
of this subject according to the wishes and according to tlie interests of the people 
of the Territory." In the exercise of that power, the people of l'" Territory did 
pass an act authorizing and regulating slavery in every particular; d that act no'.v 
exists. Slavery only to a very limited extent exists there ; but it exist y law actually. 
Now, what does this amendment of mine propose? Not that entieman shall 
agree that slavery may exist there ; not that they shall concede a principle; not 
that they shall concede any policy ; but simply that they may recoa ^ a fact, a fact 
that they cannot dispute — the fact of the actual existence of sla under actual 
law, emanating from that Territory under the power granted in ti ompromise of 
1850, which was intended to settle the afiairs of the country, and elieve uslfom 
'he troubles which have now returned, ''l-t was hailed by the whf jople, accepted 
as a peace offering on all sides, and has bVen continued from tha y. Undtr the 
lower given by that act of Congress of 1850, slavery has been itted inf that 
Territory, and all that is proposed by my amendment is, as I said, piy to re ofen''-^^. 
lat, and furthermore, the fact being recognized, that it shall be ionized thai that 
ate of things, that fact, shall continue as it is, until the Territor ili.|v»*vc acquired 
sufficient population, according to the ratio of representation fc preftpMta lives, to 
title it to onffp'^' '"jr in Congress, and then to be admitt.ed i no the "tJ^mon on an 
lal footir rest of the States, and with a constituiioi adop'-'Rg <>'' exclud- 

^.^a^'' 4 to the judgment of the people theniselve.-. , 

jroposiiion in that respect. Well, I conf it seems to m 

grant. Soaje gentlemen are averse tc nnise. Wp" 

' tnis r otnpromise. May it not v prop- 

's ? But if it were a cot 



compromise, and upoo what principle are wo opposed to'compromise ? All human 
life IS but a compromise. From the cradle to the grave, every step of it is_a compro- 
mise between man and society. And when peace is the reward of compromise, it 
has been usually blessed. A man, it is said, in respect to^the compromise of a law- 
suit, must be allowed to purciiase his peace. A man can purchase nothing better, 
nothing dearer tnan his peace, even in private transactions. How in is it in relation 
to divisions between great communities, different countries, or great sections of the 
same country ? Are they not more necessary there? Are they not more demanded 
by the interests of society, more demanded by humanity itself, than in any condition 
of life? Just as much more demanded as the consequences are greater and more 
momentous, and more destructive ordinarily. If there were no compromise, parties 
would have to settle by force or by war, these questions. 

Is there in this vompromi.-e anytliing repulsive to any section of this country? I 
know the great Republican party of this country have declared themselves against 
the extension oi slavery. Is this in the sense of that declaration? is this in the sense 
of that tenet of their faith, an exteu-ion of slavery? I have before shown, what is 
the iui'isputablfi fact, that slavery does exist here by law, which covers the whole 
Territory. It is not extending slavery into a Territory where no slavery exists. 
Slavery doe-* exist there; and the question is, wliether you will let it exist, according 
to the laws under which it does exist, until tiie Territory becomes a Slate, and decides 
for itself whellier slavery shall continue longer or not. Is there such stringency in 
the doctrines of the party on this subject, that neither for weal nor for woe, neither 
for peace no for war, will they, mediately or immediately, on a principle of compro- 
mise or on a principle of justice, recognize the existence of slavery in the Territory 
of New Mexico? 

What gentleman, as a siatesman, can stand upon that ground? What Senator 
can stand upon that ground 1 Say that we are here, as 1 verily, believe we are, upon 
the brink of intestine and civil war, that that war can be prevented by recognizing 
the fact of the existence «f slavery, and agreeing that it shall continue for ten or fif- 
teen years, until the territoriy shall become prepared to enter the Union as a Slate, 
and tiiat Senators had rather encounter civil war, had rather encounter the destruc- 
tion of this Union, and of this Government, than to agree to these terms — upon what 
grounds? Upon any grounds of [uiblic welf;ire? Upon any avowed grounds of 
policy or of patriotism ? Can any Senator stand upon that ground? What is his 
ground, then ? The Republican party sees that by possibility, under tiiis adjustment, 
that Stale, if it chooses slavery, may come into tlie Union hereafter as a slave State. 
Are they pledged against that under all circumstances? Are their general rules 
rules that admit of no exceptions? The old maxim is that the exc>.*ption proves the 
rule. If the rule be reasonable, there always are exceptional circumstances that may 
occur, which would prevent the application of the rale; but here are general rules 
thai admit of no exception; and civil war, ])estilence, famine, and everything else, 
are to be encountered, rather than to recede one single hair's breadth from a partic- 
ular, prescribed doctrine. 1 cannot conceive it possible. 

But sti]ipose, Mr. President, that this proposition does make such provision that 
the ultimate result of it may be, if the people of the Territory choose, that it may 
hereafter be entitled, under this amendment of the Constitution, to come in as a slave 
Stale. Wiiat do gentlemen say to that? Is it a dogma that no slave State ever shall 
hereafter be admitted into this Union; and will they, tor the maintenance and pre- 
servation of thai dogma, sacrifice the country ? Will ihcy encounter civil war and 
disunion and all its fearful consequences, rather than >ield up in a single instance 
this dogma of no more slave States? Surely if that dogma were lo be pressed with 
ever such heartfelt conviction, and such heartfelt zeal, it could not be but that, in 
the hearts that had so adopted and embraced it, such an exception might be made as 
this. When the fate of ray country is on the one side and my dogma on the other, 
let the dogma go rather than the country be prostrated. Is any member of the 
•Senate prepared to say, in the face of this country and of the world, that rather than 
yield up his dogma in a single instance, he will see the country go lo ruin, or he will 
attempt to enforce his opinion by the sword? Is there any man who will do such a 
thing as that, so contrary lo the law and teachings of the Almighty, and contrary to 
'II humanity ? 

Sir, we are one people. I glory in liie thought. Will one half of Jthe people un- 
"ftake lo say, I have a conscientious scruple about admitting a slave State, and I 
•end to substitute that scruple in place ot all your territorial rights? This Gov- 

inent, as made by our fathers, was made by States who held slaves and Stales 

) did not. We now stand in the same aliiiude. Then, in their time, most or all 
he Stales held slaves, and now a minority of them onlv hold slaves. Shall the 
mt majority, holding uo slaves, plead as afl apology for usurping all the com- 



mon territory of the country, a conscientious scruplp, a dogma upon their part that f 
no more slave Stales shall be admitted? I ask my honorable friends on this side ofl 
the Chamber if that is I he political system of ethics upon which they intend to act; 
if it is that which they can avow, as a party, for monopolizing that which is com- 
mon property ? Will they plead a conscientious scruple ? Sir, it is a great nursery 
for concientious scruples, indeed, if men can make titles in themselves to common 
property in that way. 1 do not know why a man who held with me a tract of land 
might not take the same scruple against me, and say that I was heretical, and vio- 
lated all his dogmas, in politics and religion; tiiat his scruples would not allow him 
to be in such communion with me as to hold property in common ; and how does 
he gratify his conscience, and how does he dissolve this question of casuistry '? By 
taking tlie whole property to himself and turning me out. I say it is a great nursery 
for scruples of this sort, if an argument of that kind is to be found here. 

And now, Mr. President, see how exactly the very Territory in dispute comes 
Avithin the line of all that reasoning which would show that every part of the coun- 
try ought to be considered as equally entitled to share in the enjoyment of it. That 
country was but recently acquired from Mexico ; and it was acquired by conquest. 
Is it not as plain a case, that every section of the country paid its proportionate part 
of the consideration, as if it had been bought with money, and each citizen had con- 
tributed trie number of pence that his interest amounted to? Did not the South 
contribute her part of the treasure which bore the expense of that purchase? Did 
she not contribute her portion of the blood that was shed in obtaining it? Did she 
not even a little more of it than our northern brethren, because of their remote situa- 
tion ? We were nearer the scene of action, could get to it more easily, and there- 
fore, perhaps, there were more southern than northern men engaged in the war. The 
millions of money that it cost were paid, not out of a sectional purse, but out of a 
national purse, to which all contributed. We fought, one as well as another, and all 
sections did their duty. 

I do not recur to these things for reproach upon any section of our country. No, 
sir; I. love it all too well. It is all my country. I am not the man to degrade any 
portion of it by any lunguag? I have to use. 

This territory, then, plainly and clearly, was acquired by us all. It is but the 
work of yesterday. Now, a portion attempt to take it. They have scruples about 
allowing us our full and unrestricted and unreserved equal right in the territory. 
Can this be proper? We are but one community, with diverse institutions in rela- 
tion to domestic slavery, as well as In relation to many other subjects. We have 
grown u[. in, and cultivated habits suitable to, all the circumstances surrounding us, 
just as every people on earth have. The institution of slavery has given a variety 
to the form of society in which it exists. The absence of it has given form to a 
somewhat different condition of society, but equally adapted to its people. So it 
will be everywhere. You say, then, ior instance, by way of mitigating the wrong 
done, that you only exclude slaveholders; you only exclude three hundred thou- 
sand — not a section of the country ; not States ; not fifteen States; but three hun- 
dred thousand slaveholders in those States. Whether that is a correct coin{)utation 
of them I do not know; nor is it of the least importance to this argument. No ; the 
wrong does not stop there. All the millions that have been reared in the society 
formed, and receiving its character, and receiving its complexion from that institu- 
tion, though they may not be the owners of slaves, have t)een brought up and habit- 
uated to the habit and form of society which that institution has given birth to. 
That makes a difference in the habits of a people not to be worn off in a day or a 
minute — transient, I admit; but they are, for the present, their habits. Their feel- 
ings and their habits go along together; and neither would you northern men prefer 
to go into the society of these people under circumstances equal; nor would the 
southern man, with his habits and feelings, prefer to go into nortliern society, sim- 
ply because of chang-es in the custom and habits; that is all. By restraining the 
slaveholders from going into any Territory, then you restrain the formation of any 
such habits as this other man, Avho is not a slaveholder in the southern States, has 
formed. You do not expel him, but you erect a barrier: not an insuperable one : 
you create a new difficulty in his way in going there, where he is to rnt-et witf 
strangers, and strangers of somewhat different habits from himself. 

But, as a matter of right, looking at it according to the political principles up< 
which our great political society is formed ; looking at it upon thecommoa popu' 
principles upon which the Constitution was formed, have you a right, in the dis' 
bution of the public property, to make any distinction between the portions of 
country holding slaves and those who do not hold them ? Why have you more r 
to do it in respect to the public lands and Territories of the United States iha 
respect to any otixer species of public property ? If yo-^ had money in the Trea 



•would you insist upon taking all of that ? No. I know you would not, Why? 
Because it is a common property. When, instead of money, we come to divide ter- 
ritory, land, does not the same principle apply — not merely upon the ground of ordi- 
nary equity or justice, but because our Constitution has been formed, those who made 
it well knowing that in difl'erent sections of the common country for which it was 
made, difl'erent scruples might obtain, difl'erent dogmas might prevail? But these 
were not to be looked to at all. Our Constitution, in its provisions, leaves us all free 
to entertain th«se dogmas; but it does not leave us free to disregard the great prin- 
ciples of equality and equal justice, and equal distribution, as among honest fellow- 
citizens, of land as well as money, and everything else. No part of the country, no 
section of the country, has a right to set up its particular opinion on any subject as 
the image of orthodoxy, and say those who do not come up to this rule of ortho- 
doxy shall not share with us in any thing that belongs to this Government. This is 
regulated, not by conscientious considerations, not by a scruple, but by broad, plain, 
common political principles; such as our common Constitution was framed upon. 
Would you, upon any ground of diflerence as to a question of religion, have a right 
to make any distinction ? Would you have a right to say that no Presbyterian 
should settle in this territory, because he is a Presbyterian? Would you iiave a 
right to say that no Congregalionalist shall settle there ? Suppose we were divided 
by a sectional line in our religion ; would any one of us have a right to invoke his 
ff'ligion as a reason why he was entitled to more, and his brother to less, or to nothing? 
Nobody would pretend that. You have no right to bring up scruples of that sort, or 
questions of that sort, agamst another. 

This question of .slavery has been, to no small extent, connected with the ques- 
tion of religion. The pulpit has taken it in hand ; the pulpit has become the min- 
ister of politicians, and politicians have ministered to ministers of the Gospel, 
neither to the benefit nor profit of the Gospel ; and now scruples — I may as well 
call them scruples of religion as well as scruples about slavery — are pleaded on one 
side. You do not plead it eo nomine as a religious preference that you are entitled 
to, or as a religious distinction. You plead it, to be sure, as a distinct opinion of your 
own upon the subject of slavery; but you have been able to force that question of 
slavery into a great political position before the country, by the aid of the pulpit. It 
has become with some a religious feeling. I am not one of those who feel a dis- 
position to speak, or allow myself to speak, disrespectfully of religion; but I point 
you to these things as facts that we see and know, that there has been a combi- 
nation, a mixing up, of these questions with religion and with politics; and we are 
taught from the pulpit daily, not of the jiolitical improvidence, not of the political 
impolicy of slavery ; but we are taught that it is a great sin, and that we are to put 
it far away from us. 

Now, suppose all this doctrine is right : does it come under our Constitution ? Does 
it come within the principles of our Constitution that we shall set up any such 
standard ? The Con.-titution has set up a standard, and it is a standard of tqual jus- 
tice and principle. It recognizes and estimates each man, and each community of 
men, not according to their religious opinionsat all, but according to political rights; 
and their political rights are equal, however different they may be in their religious 
opinions or in any conscientious scruples, however honorable. We have no right 
to !<pply such feelings to government. Our conscience may be a very good governor 
for ourselves ; its teachings we may follow ; but you have no right to insist, nor have I 
any right to insist, that 1 shall substitute my conscience for yours; or that you shall 
condemn ray conscience, and put the penalty upon it of a forfeiture of my political 
rights, if 1 continue to act upon it. You have no right to do thai. What is it now, 
my friends, that is insisted upon ? Here is a vast community sufficient in extent f 
territory, sufficient in the number of its people, to make a respectable nation. They 
have one opinion on this subject. They have long practiced upon it. Society, 
education, everything among them is molded upon thiat institution. Now, of a sud- 
den. It is demanded of them, not directly as to the States; but the principle upon 
which the policy is founded, however limited it may be in point of space, is the same 
in elfoci. You demand that, notwithstanding my lawful practice, my lawfully ac- 
quired habits, my lawfully acquired property, and all the notions connected with it, 
and accommodated to it, I shall lay them all aside, give them all up, and substitute 
an idea in place of them — an idea of anti-slavery. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Polk in the chair.) It becomes the duty of 
the Chair to state there is a special order for the hour of one o'clock, the resolution 
reported by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Powti.L,] chairman of the special 
committeeof thirteen, on which the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombh] has the floor. 

Mr. TOOMBS. If it suits the gentleman, I will move to postpone the special 
order ou which I had the floor, and Lake the floor ou his own resolutions, if he prefer^ 



that course. If the Senator desires to proceed now, I will yield to him, though I ex- 
pected to speak at one o'clock, or go on now — wliichever he prefers. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. I would rather go on, because I wish to coaclude all that 
I iiave to say. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will consider it, then, as the sense 
of the Senate, unless objection be made, that the Senator from Kentucky shall pro- 
ceed with his remarks upon his own resolution. 

iVIr. CRITTENDEN. It is through a long train of events, of party controver- 
sies, that the country has been bronghl to its present deplorable condition. It would 
be idle to say that in the course of that long controversy all the blame has been on 
one side.and all the right on the other. Riglit and wrong have naver been so exclu- 
sively divided in any human controversy. We have allcontributed to excite those 
passions and those feelings which now bring our country into the most imminent 
peril. I shall not attempt lo balance this account, and show clearly which has been 
in the wrong. That would be an idle attempt, and would do no good, if successful. 
It is not to tlie past so much that I would allude hs lo the present and tiie future. No 
matter whether I have -been the wrong doer or whether I have received the wronj, 
wlien the question comes as to the safety of the country, as lo the safe'y of the Con- 
stitution, I should act with a reference to that object, and^not to any past or present 
controversies that 1 may have with parties or with individuals. 

IMr. President, I am not here as the advocate of slavery. I am here as the advo- 
cate of the Union, honestly, sincerely, zealously. I am pleading for that; and I am 
pleading with the Senate to do that whicli I believe will preserve the Union and 
stop the course of revolution and of war, and which alone I believe will do it. If 
I plead for this solution of territorial diiSculties, it is because I believe it is necessary 
to save the Union. Is it possible that any Senator could believe, x/ith re-ipect to 
this arid and sterile Territory, it could be an object with any gentleman to desire the 
extension of slavery ? I do not believe myself that slavery can ever be invited 
there. Climate, soil, its remoteness from all the great avenues of commerce, all 
tend, in my opinion, to interpose natural barriers against it. That, however, is not 
so much the question as our right to go there at all. You have no more right to 
lake away poor land than you have rich land, from our settlement. Upon the prin- 
ciples of the Constitution, you have no more riglit to take away one than the other; 
and it is not so much the violation of territorial authority as it is the violation of 
that principle of equality, that principle of equal right upon which every section 
stands. 

Tiiat the South has received some wrong in the course of our party action, is, I 
think, mos:; clear. There has been introduced into this country, it has grown up, 
forced on by parly principles step by ste[), without any man, perhaps, comprehending 
the whole conclusion and the whole extent of it. until it has appeared in all its fear- 
ful proportions, a great power, said to be the ruling power of this country, that has 
introduced an anii-shivery system of policy in the United States. In the original 
Constitution — xnd ray friends from the North look to that fact, and cherish it — the 
word "slave" is not to be found. How often have weheard that repeated here, my 
friends? You cling to it with tenacity, as a great fact; and yet what have you 
done? Your system of policy, that upon which you have triumphed — upon which 
your platform rests — is nothing but anti-slavery alone. Is this right? The opin- 
ions may be right as private opinions; but under the Constitution of the United 
States, upon the great principles and policies which it contemplated, was it ever to 
be imagined, or is it ever to be justified, that a great party should stand alone upoQ 
a system of anti-slavery, making war by one section upon another section — a war 
of opinion, if no more? 

It IS in vain that you endeavor to mitigate this war of opinion, this war of denun- 
ciation, one against another, one system against another, by saying: " We do not 
lay our hands upon you, we do not touch slavery in the Slates." But you abuse 
and denounce the institution of one half the States of your great country, and you 
know where it must strike. That that has given great alarm to some portioBs of 
the southern States, ought not to surprise you. It is quite natural. It will be some- 
thing more than a mere common inference, if, after having succeeded, if, after hav- 
ing corameuced the formation of your great party, for the avowed purpose of retriev- 
ing what you supposed you had lost by the repeal of the Missouri compromise, you 
now refuse not only to restore that line, and to accept all tiie territory nortli of it, 
and only to yield up that the present state of things shall continue in the territory 
south until that territory becomes a State. 

You have just succeeded in a great contest upon your anti-slavery system of pol- 
icy. It now, just at this critical lime, in the mjment of your great victory, in the 
moment, as it may be supposed, when you are coulident, elated by that victory, you 



refuse to give this security, and plant yourselves proudly and sternly upon platforms 
and dognias, and say: "We V7ill take no step backward," have not the South some 
little cause to compla-n ? But, as generous men, as American statesmen, as Ameri- 
cans, havmg an interest throughout this whole great continent, are not these mo- 
tives sufficient to induce you to make, if necessary, a compromise, and a liberal 
corn promise? Now thai you are the victors, be just; and not only just, but liberal. 
Less than this will create more dissatisfaction, more misapprehension. Will you 
not do all m your power to quiet and put an end to these troubles? 

I hope I shall not be understood as addressing you with any language in a spirit 
of offense. I do not. I appeal to you as my countrymen ; 1 appeal to you as states- 
men ; I appeal to you as victors in a great political strife; and I implore you to 
make your victory useful to your country and honorable to yourselves, by that great- 
est of all acts which you can ever have the power or the opportunity to do, of saving 
that country by settling this question. You are called upon to make no concession. 
I do not concede that I ask any concession in this proportion. It is nothing more 
than justice, bare justice. 

Allow me to recount here for a moment what has been our history in relation to 
terniurial acquisitions from the peace of 1783 down to this time. As I read fiorn the 
book theoiher day, you had atthat timeone hundred and sixty-sixthousand squarcmiles 
and the South six hundred and fifty thousand square miles. How is it now? The 
first change in these proportions was produced by the cession made by Virginia of 
all tlie territory northwest of the Ohio, with a provision excluding slavery. That 
changed the proportion, and made the North over four luindred thousand square 
miles, and the South ovur three hundred thousand square miles. The North, at 
this early period, and by means of this voluntary cession, become the greater in point 
of territory. VVe went on to acquire Florida, Louisiana, and what we conquered 
and purchased from Mexico. All these various acquisition-^ have been so divided 
out that, at this day, the North has two millions two hundred thousand square miles, 
and the South less than one million .square miles, even when you have given her 
this Territory of New Mexico. Given her, did I say? You only agree that the 
present state of law there, in respect to persons held to servitude, shall continue until 
it becomes a State — that is all. The condition it is now in was not produced by 
force, or by any Iraud. It has obtained its present condition by law, passed with the 
consent of the Senate of the United States. The act of September 18, 1850, gave 
authority to the Legislature to authorize and sanction slavery. 

Then, if we can settle this matter of difficulty in relation to the Territories, there 
is, 1 think, in all the other propositions, nothing that anyljody can complain of. As 
to the fugitive slave law, it is only changed and altered so as to make it less 
obnoxious' to our fellow-citizens of the North. That is the whole extent of the 
amendment. Therefore that can be no ground of complaint on the part of our 
northern Iriends. 

As to the prohibition to abolish or prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia, 
and the places under the special jurisdictio'n of Congress within the slave States, it 
seems to me that stands upon a ground that no man can deny. These Territories 
have been ceded to the General Governmeul by slave States. It could not be expected 
or apprehended that it was supposed thai Congress would abolish slavery in little 
spols within the midst of the slaveholding States. At the time this cession was 
made, was any such thing contemplated by any one? Is it to be presumed it was? 
If not, would it not be bad faith on the part of the Government, to say the least of 
it, to use its jurisdiclion for purposes which they supposed injurious to them, and 
not contemplated by any of the parties at the time ol' the cession ? Good faith 
requiring ttiat these things should not be done, would it be too much to a.>k you, as 
an assurance that it shall not be done, to declare that the Constitution ought no' • 
be .so construed as to give power to do it ? I think there can he no omo • 
that. 

I do not intend to go more particularly or precisely in 
question at this time, and I hope it will never be requir 
There are some questions involved in this matter in reli 
which 1 desire merely to give my opinion. I have said ti 
bl' me ill these controversies. It is so of necessity. Our 
• that in all long-continued controversies. It has been sc 

le South has not acted rashly? Who can say that tht 
unwisely 1 I cannot. To say' nothing of the past polilic 
committed, but to look to the present, 1 do not believe in 
is a new doctrine. It has sprung up and grown wonr' 
It is not namei' • '"" ' tion. It has no n^'" 

laws. If il me 't i^ 



to secede from thn bold front and character of revolution, it is nothing but a lawless 
violation of the Consiitutioii. That is my opinion. I do not intend to argue it ; but 
I wish fo lake the responsibility of saymg, in these momentous times, when the 
Consiitulion of the country is apt to be run down, and trodden down ; when a right 
of secession is urged ; a right to go off, and to take with them forts, and arsenals, 
and everything prepared for the common defense, that I cannot agree with it. It is 
new to me. It is of modern growth. 

But, sir, I do not desire to be carried ofl' into that question. I want only to bear 
ray testimony for the Constitution of my country. 1 want it to be known — and, as 
far as my poor voice can go, it shall go — that ihis Constitution, so far from its being 
liable to be broken by anybody that chooses to secede, as they call it, is a grand and 
inviolable iuotrunieni, upon which no man should lay his unhallowed ha?)d, or 
attempt to withdraw himself. If he is oppressed, let him take the responsibilities of 
revolution ; let him defy the war; let him proclaim himself a revolutioiiist, and not 
attempt to hide his revolution in the little subtilties of law, and the little subtilties 
with which he surrounds seee.-sion, as it is called. I do not believe in it. It is no 
justiticatiori. My honorable friend from Louisiana [Mr. BENJAiMiN] quotes Mr. 
Madison and Mr. Webster as authority for this doctrine. Why, sir, if the gentle- 
man had extended his inquiry a little further, he would have seen that no doctrine 
was ever repudiated more precisely, exactly, and sternly, than this doctrine of seces- 
ihion was by Mr. Madison ; and Mr. Webster's name and fame are identified with 
the argument by which he was supposed to have destroyed every pretext on which 
such a doctrine could stand. If it is intended merely as another name for revolution^ 
be it so. 1 do not know that gentlemen have not a right to so denominate their 
actions if ihey please ; but a constitutional right to break the Constitution — a consti- 
tutional riglit to destroy the Union — would be indeed a strange form of government. 

I am tor the Union ; but, my friends, I must be also for the equal rights of my State 
under this great Constitution nnd in this great Union. You must be prepared to grant 
them. I hope you will be. You desire to maintain the Union. You say you do. I 
believe it. I do. But we must preserve it on the proper terms of equal respect and 
equal regard. The dogma of my State is, tliat she has as much riglit to go into the 
Territories with her slaves as you, who do not choose to hold such properly, have to 
go without them. That is their dogma. Would it not be best fur both of us to re- 
nounce the pretension to go on its own dogma at the expense of the other, and let 
us make that odious thing, if it must be called so — a compromise — again to restore 
our fellowship and our brotherhood. Balance the consequences of a civil war and 
the consequences of your now agreeing to the stipulated terms of peace here, and see 
how they compare one with another. I will not repeat again what is asked of you. 
It is but a trifle in point of territory, a trifle in poinc of any material value that can 
be assigned to it, and there is no breach of any principle. It is an exception, and a 
fair exception upon exceptional grounds, to the principle you avow. On the other 
side, you have civil war 

Mr. TRUxMBULL. Will the Senator allow me to ask him, if he has any assu- 
rance that civil war is to be averted by his resolution ; if he does not know that a 
State has already undertaken to secede, and says she wants no compromise, and will 
have none? 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. It is proper that I should answer the question of the Senator 
from Illinois. I belifve it will. Of course I cannot say for certain; I may be mistaken, 
I believe it firmly, and I believe it without a doubt. It may not satisfy all. I never 
expected it would. That it will satisfy a sufficient portion of the country to preserve 
the p'^ace, and to preserve the Union everywhere, is my belief. I think, if the gen- 
tleman is disposed to grant it^Jw; will find in the experiment that all this commotion 

'' be put an end to, not instantly. It may have commenced already, for all I 

"''^rlesion. It may not satisfy South Carolina. Hers is a peculiar case; 

•"y almost all the southern States: at any rate to such an 

o further proceeding in this revolution, no further secession, 

lat is my belief; and I hope and trust, sir, that we shall 

el confident of the result, and that it will be the restora- 

d then these glentlemen may go on honorably in this new 

country. Let them commence now by this first gloric js 

1 be a noble starting point. But lei them goon withoi 

v/ay is to take the sword in hand, and woe be to tiiem , 

ider that policy, to administer this Government! If the 

elied upon, then woe to your Administration ! Yourvic- 

md ashes. Grant these measures, and jiyou will fating 

—'•oIp country. ^'^~ih ' 



